PL EN


2017 | 27 | 4 English Online Version | 7-16
Article title

Procedure For Out-Of-Court Resolution Of Consumer Distputes in Light of the Act of 23 September 2016

Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The ADR Act of 23 September 2016 addressing consumer dispute resolution implements the EP and EC ADR Directive of 21 May 2013 regulating consumer dispute resolution, and EU and EP Regulation 524/2013 of 21 May 2013 on Online Dispute Resolution in Consumer Disputes. The aim is to give consumers who engage in dispute resolution with business entities an option to apply to legal entities that offer independent, impartial, transparent and effective facilities of amicable dispute resolution. The aim is also to equip entrepreneurs with a necessary tool to avoid costly and prolonged court proceedings against consumers. This article discusses how the Act regulates the substance, commencement, conduct and conclusion of the proceedings in out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes.
Contributors
  • Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
References
  • Asłanowicz, Marcin. Sąd polubowny (arbitrażowy). Komentarz (1154–1217 KPC). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck, 2017.
  • Creutzfeldt, Naomi. “Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumers.” In The Role of Consumer ADR in the Administration of Justice, edited by Michael Stürner, Fernando Gascón Inchausti, and Remo Caponi, 3–10. Munich: Sellier European Law Publisher GmbH, 2015.
  • Figura, Aldona. Opinia do ustawy o pozasądowym rozwiązywaniu sporów konsumenckich (3.10.2016), form no. 282.
  • Gajda, Katarzyna. “Alternatywne metody rozwiązywania sporów w sprawach konsumenckich (cz. I).” ADR. Arbitraż i mediacja 2 (2008): 1–21.
  • Moore, Christopher. Mediacje. Praktyczne strategie rozwiązywania sporów. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.
  • Rudzki, Marcin. “Uwagi na tle regulacji postępowań ADR w sporach konsumenckich w świetle ustawy o pozasądowym rozwiązywaniu sporów konsumenckich.” ADR. Arbitraż i mediacja 3 (2017): 63–73.
  • Welsh, Nancy. “The Thinning Vision of Self-Determination in Court-Connected Mediation: The Inevitable Price of Institutionalization.” Harvard Negotiation Law Review 6 (2001): 1–96.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-cb287621-0025-4086-9d46-01cca1d18f06
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.